My mention of the Tree of Life was not intended to have anything to do =
with original sin. I was thinking mostly of Gen. 3:22, where God =
mentions that Adam must not eat of the tree of life lest he live forever =
after sinning--as though the tree had big magic that God himself could =
not override. Such language flashes "MYTH!" in neon. But suppose Adam =
never sinned and partook of the tree's fruits. While this supposition =
is theologically useless--as you've pointed out, a literal-minded =
interpreter I think would need to consider the possibility and its =
implications. One who is not literal-minded can ignore it. =20

I initially found this offensive. However, I decided to look up 'myth' in a
couple of sources. The one in my mind matched this one from Yahoo reference:

1a. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings,
ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a
people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the
psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a
creation myth.

However, the one from my 1975 Miriam Websters is quite different:

1. a usu traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to
unfold part of the world view of a people to explain a practice, belief or
natural phenomenon.
2. Parable; Allegory